谣言、流言研究
|
摘要
谣言、流言与人类的文明一样古老。这样一个亘古而常新的社会现象随着人类社会的发展,其发生的概率不是变小了,而是变大了,其所折射的社会问题不是减少了,而是增多了,因而研究它的现实意义不是减弱了,而是增强了。那么,又该如何对这样一个社会现象进行研究呢?在本文中我们把谣言、流言视作一种人们之间社会互动的过程及其结果,只不过这种互动的纽带既不是人类学意义上的“血缘”、也不是经济学意义上的“利益”,而是语言哲学意义上的“话语”。换句话说,我们认为,谣言、流言的逻辑是籍由话语而展开的,因为离开了人们的话语,谣言、流言就失去了存在之基和能量之源。这样一来,本文对谣言、流言的解读其实是一种以话语为中心的社会互动分析。那么,本文又是如何分析的呢?
我们重点考察了谣言、流言中人们话语互动的四个方面:
首先,互动离不开主体。在谣言、流言中究竟是谁在说话呢?由于真实生活中的人总是处于不同的话语圈之中,由此形成了一个复杂性的话语主体,所谓“见人说人话,见鬼说鬼话”其实就是对话语主体复杂性的一个通俗描述。我们认为,话语主体的复杂性意味着主体从来不是同一的,而是分裂的。这种分裂主要表现在两个维度:内在维度和外在维度。内在维度中除了“有意识的自我”外,还包含了“无意识的他者”,因此,仅仅停留在传统认识论所说的笛卡尔意义上的“我思”的维度是不够的,我们还要看到谣言、流言主体在互动时受到无意识力量的左右;外在维度中除了在场的“说话者”外,还存在着不在场但出场的“他者”,一般来说,“在场的说话者”通过“不在场的他者”来表达自己的意向性,“不在场的他者”通过“在场的说话者”强化了话语的力量。此外,作为一种“社会人”,话语主体在互动时深受所居社会“圈子”的影响。
其次,互动不能没有焦点。在谣言、流言中,人们的话语互动总是围绕着某个人或某事来进行。我们在第四章通过历史(中国26史和西方9史)和现实(Google和百度“新闻”)两个维度对谣言、流言的焦点人物和焦点事件进行了统计分析,分析的基本结论是,谣言、流言焦点人物主要分为两大类:一类是那些有着极强社会资源控制能力,因而说话很有份量的人,这部分人占绝大多数;另一类是那些被社会边缘化的失语人,这部分人占极少数;普通人一般不会成谣言、流言的焦点人物。无论是拥有强势话语的人,还是失语的人,在谣言、流言中他们都是通过“否定”的方式来凸显其存在的,只不过前者一般来说是被动的“否定”,后者一般来说是主动的“否定”罢了。因此,谣言、流言中的人物往往在横向上折射出了那个社会的结构的两极,在纵向上则折射出了不同时期的社会结构变迁。谣言、流言中的事件大部分要么是一种对现实的曲解,要么是一种对未来的预言。在这中间“真理”成为一种修辞,因为真实性与话语群体紧密地联系在一起,话语群体认为是真实的就是真实的;在这中间谣言、流言还成为一种指引人们行动的自我实现的手段,有些本来是子虚乌有的事,结果被说成了谣言、流言中的那个样子。无论是焦点人物的分析还是焦点事件的分析,似乎更能让我们远离意识形态的干扰,更能让我们感受到真实、细致、多样的社会结构的力量。此外,在对焦点的分析中,我们发现很多谣言、流言总在历史中能找到它的影子,这表明一个群体的社会记忆的作用突出。
再次,互动总是表现为一定的形式。依据谣言、流言内容在话语互动过程中是否发生变异,我们把谣言、流言的话语形式分为变异性的话语形式和非变异性的话语形式。为什么有的发生变异了,有的没有发生变异呢?我们认为,媒介的偏向性不可低估,从话语的维度来说,口头媒介最易使话语发生变异,因而具有变异性偏向;印刷媒介最不易使话语发生变异,因而具有非变异性偏向;电子媒介则显得有得“中庸”,居于两者之间。在探讨谣言、流言话语变异性与否的主要原因后,我们还运用社会网络分析法对美国历史上最大的校园枪击案中“凶手是中国人”的讹传个案进行分析,发现谣言、流言的话语形式背后的社会结构同时具有小世界和无标度的特征,其中还存在着两个重要的引爆点,没有这两个引爆点,谣言的传播速度和能量将大为削弱。此外,我们还探讨了谣言、流言话语形式中的社会场景作用。
最后,互动总是有原因的。我们在第六章探讨了人们为什么造谣的话语之因。从话语的维度来说,所谓造谣其实包含着一个心灵与世界(社会)间双向话语投射的过程。为什么是双向投射而不是单向投射呢?依据塞尔的言语行为理论,这是因为在心灵和世界(社会)间存在着相互适应的需求,谣言、流言就是人们获得心灵和世界(社会)间相互适应的手段之一。那么在什么样的情况下人们会选择谣言、流言这样的手段呢?我们认为,存在着两种情况:“过于有序”和“过于无序”,而无论是“过于有序”还是“过于无序”,它们往往使人们以言行事的能力进一步受限,进而在“言”与“行”两个向度之间形成一种更强大张力,当达到一定的临界点时,如出现极权或社会暴乱,心灵和世界(社会)间严重失衡,与此同时人们以言行事能力却被进一步削弱,这时候谣言就成为一种有效的平衡手段之一。此外,由于意识形态的基本倾向是维护既有社会秩序的,因此我们在很多谣言的个案中都会发现它的作用。
Rumor is as old as human civilization. As the development of human society, both the probability of its occurrence and the problems it reflects are not decreasing but increasing. Therefore, the practical significance of its research is not weakened, but strengthened. Then, how can we do our study about such a social phenomenon? In my study, the rumor was taken as a process and result of social interaction between people. However, the ties of this interaction is not "consanguinity relation" viewing from Anthropology or "interest" viewing from Economics, but "discourse" viewing from Philosophy of Language. In another words, the logic of rumor is presented by discourse. Because the rumor would lose its foundation for existence and source of energy, if there's no longer people's discourse. Therefore, the interpretation of the rumor in this study is actually a kind of discourse analysis of the social interaction. Then, how do perform this analysis?
It is mainly investigated from four aspects of the people's discourse interaction of the rumor:
Firstly, no subject no discourse. It must be studied that the subject who is speaking in rumor? Persons in the real life always exist in the different networks of discourse, thus forming a complex group of subjects. The so-called "Kind words to gentleman, wily words to evil" is a popular description of the complexity of the discourse subject. Moreover, the complexity of discourse subject implies that the subjects are never the same, but the split. This split is presented in two dimensions: internal and external dimensions. The internal dimensions include "the self-conscious" and "the other-unconscious". So we must pay our attention not only to understand the subject viewing from "I think therefore I am", but also to the impact of unconscious when subject interact with discourse. The external dimensions include "The Presence of the 'Speaker'" and "The Absent Existence of the'Other'". Generally, the former express their intention by the latter, the latter strengthen their discourse power by the former. In addition, as the persons in the society, the subject of discourse is hardly influenced by the social network when they interact with each other.
Secondly, discourse interaction must have focus. In a rumor, people's discourse interaction is always around a person or a matter. In chapter four, focus people and focus events of rumors, which existed in the history and reality are analyzed with statistical methods. The references about history is coming from 26 history books in china and 9 history books in western, and the reference about the reality is coming from the news website of Google and Baidu(1.1-6.13/2007). And the basic conclusion of this analysis is that the focus of people and event in rumor can be divided into two categories: One is those who have a strong ability to control social resources and thus have enough discourse power. Those people are majority of the focus in rumor. Another is those who were marginized by society and thus they have no discourse power. And they are minority of the focus in rumor. The ordinary people are hardly the focus of rumor. Either those who have enough discourse power or have no discourse power, they all present themselves by negative way, which is generally passive for the former and active for the latter. Therefore, the focus people in rumor always reflect the bipolar of the social structure from the horizontal dimension and the social change in different periods from the vertical dimension. And the focus event is either a distortion of reality or a prediction of the future. In this condition, "truth" becomes a rhetorical method in rumor. Because the truthfulness is close together with discourse groups and the truth is actually what the discourse groups take as. In this condition, rumor is also as a kind of self-fulfilling means. That is to say, something which does not exist becomes a reality by rumors. Either the analysis of focus people or focus event can make us be far form the disturbance of ideology and feel the power of the real, detail and various social structures. In addition, during the analyzing the focus, we find a lot of rumor that its "shadow" can be discovered in history. This indicates that the social memory of a group is very important in rumor.
Thirdly, discourse interaction always manifests some forms. According to the standard whether it has variations in discourse, the rumor form can be divided into two types, which are variant form and non-variant form. Why there're variations and non-variant? We think that the media bias should not be underestimated. From the view of discourse, spoken media is easiest to make discourse vary, so it has variant bias. On the contrary, printing media is hardest to make the discourse vary, so it has non-variant bias. And, the effect of electronic media is between the spoken media and printing media, its bias is the average. After discussing the main cause of variation of discourse in rumor, A typical rumor case of "Chinese is murder", which spread during the largest campus shooting in American history, is analyzed with the social network analysis method. We find that the social structure behind the discourse form of rumor has the characteristics of "small-world" and "scale-free" simultaneously. And we also find there are two important "critical point". If there's no the two "critical point" in a rumor, the speed of spread and energy of rumor will be badly weakened. Moreover, we also discuss the importance of social situation in the discourse form of rumor.
Finally, discourse interaction is always initiated by some reasons. The discourse reason of rumor spreading is analyzed in chapter six. We find rumor spreading has a bidirectional discourse projection processes from the perspective of discourse: one is from the mind to the world (society); the other is from the world (society) to the mind. Why it is not unidirectional but bidirectional? Because there is an adaptation between the world (society) and the mind according to the theory of speech acts raised by Searle, the rumor is just the means for people to acquire the adaptation between the world (society) and the mind. When do people use the means of rumor? We think that there are two special conditions: "over-order" and "over-disorder". Both of them usually restrict the ability of discourse for people, and then form a strong tension between speech and action of discourse. When it reaches a critical point, such as totalitarian authority or social rebellion, serious imbalance occurred between mind and world (society), and the ability of discourse was further weakened simultaneously, people have to use rumor to acquire a balance between mind and world (society). In addition, we found that ideology is important in a lot of rumor cases, because the basic trend of ideology is to maintain social order.
我们重点考察了谣言、流言中人们话语互动的四个方面:
首先,互动离不开主体。在谣言、流言中究竟是谁在说话呢?由于真实生活中的人总是处于不同的话语圈之中,由此形成了一个复杂性的话语主体,所谓“见人说人话,见鬼说鬼话”其实就是对话语主体复杂性的一个通俗描述。我们认为,话语主体的复杂性意味着主体从来不是同一的,而是分裂的。这种分裂主要表现在两个维度:内在维度和外在维度。内在维度中除了“有意识的自我”外,还包含了“无意识的他者”,因此,仅仅停留在传统认识论所说的笛卡尔意义上的“我思”的维度是不够的,我们还要看到谣言、流言主体在互动时受到无意识力量的左右;外在维度中除了在场的“说话者”外,还存在着不在场但出场的“他者”,一般来说,“在场的说话者”通过“不在场的他者”来表达自己的意向性,“不在场的他者”通过“在场的说话者”强化了话语的力量。此外,作为一种“社会人”,话语主体在互动时深受所居社会“圈子”的影响。
其次,互动不能没有焦点。在谣言、流言中,人们的话语互动总是围绕着某个人或某事来进行。我们在第四章通过历史(中国26史和西方9史)和现实(Google和百度“新闻”)两个维度对谣言、流言的焦点人物和焦点事件进行了统计分析,分析的基本结论是,谣言、流言焦点人物主要分为两大类:一类是那些有着极强社会资源控制能力,因而说话很有份量的人,这部分人占绝大多数;另一类是那些被社会边缘化的失语人,这部分人占极少数;普通人一般不会成谣言、流言的焦点人物。无论是拥有强势话语的人,还是失语的人,在谣言、流言中他们都是通过“否定”的方式来凸显其存在的,只不过前者一般来说是被动的“否定”,后者一般来说是主动的“否定”罢了。因此,谣言、流言中的人物往往在横向上折射出了那个社会的结构的两极,在纵向上则折射出了不同时期的社会结构变迁。谣言、流言中的事件大部分要么是一种对现实的曲解,要么是一种对未来的预言。在这中间“真理”成为一种修辞,因为真实性与话语群体紧密地联系在一起,话语群体认为是真实的就是真实的;在这中间谣言、流言还成为一种指引人们行动的自我实现的手段,有些本来是子虚乌有的事,结果被说成了谣言、流言中的那个样子。无论是焦点人物的分析还是焦点事件的分析,似乎更能让我们远离意识形态的干扰,更能让我们感受到真实、细致、多样的社会结构的力量。此外,在对焦点的分析中,我们发现很多谣言、流言总在历史中能找到它的影子,这表明一个群体的社会记忆的作用突出。
再次,互动总是表现为一定的形式。依据谣言、流言内容在话语互动过程中是否发生变异,我们把谣言、流言的话语形式分为变异性的话语形式和非变异性的话语形式。为什么有的发生变异了,有的没有发生变异呢?我们认为,媒介的偏向性不可低估,从话语的维度来说,口头媒介最易使话语发生变异,因而具有变异性偏向;印刷媒介最不易使话语发生变异,因而具有非变异性偏向;电子媒介则显得有得“中庸”,居于两者之间。在探讨谣言、流言话语变异性与否的主要原因后,我们还运用社会网络分析法对美国历史上最大的校园枪击案中“凶手是中国人”的讹传个案进行分析,发现谣言、流言的话语形式背后的社会结构同时具有小世界和无标度的特征,其中还存在着两个重要的引爆点,没有这两个引爆点,谣言的传播速度和能量将大为削弱。此外,我们还探讨了谣言、流言话语形式中的社会场景作用。
最后,互动总是有原因的。我们在第六章探讨了人们为什么造谣的话语之因。从话语的维度来说,所谓造谣其实包含着一个心灵与世界(社会)间双向话语投射的过程。为什么是双向投射而不是单向投射呢?依据塞尔的言语行为理论,这是因为在心灵和世界(社会)间存在着相互适应的需求,谣言、流言就是人们获得心灵和世界(社会)间相互适应的手段之一。那么在什么样的情况下人们会选择谣言、流言这样的手段呢?我们认为,存在着两种情况:“过于有序”和“过于无序”,而无论是“过于有序”还是“过于无序”,它们往往使人们以言行事的能力进一步受限,进而在“言”与“行”两个向度之间形成一种更强大张力,当达到一定的临界点时,如出现极权或社会暴乱,心灵和世界(社会)间严重失衡,与此同时人们以言行事能力却被进一步削弱,这时候谣言就成为一种有效的平衡手段之一。此外,由于意识形态的基本倾向是维护既有社会秩序的,因此我们在很多谣言的个案中都会发现它的作用。
Rumor is as old as human civilization. As the development of human society, both the probability of its occurrence and the problems it reflects are not decreasing but increasing. Therefore, the practical significance of its research is not weakened, but strengthened. Then, how can we do our study about such a social phenomenon? In my study, the rumor was taken as a process and result of social interaction between people. However, the ties of this interaction is not "consanguinity relation" viewing from Anthropology or "interest" viewing from Economics, but "discourse" viewing from Philosophy of Language. In another words, the logic of rumor is presented by discourse. Because the rumor would lose its foundation for existence and source of energy, if there's no longer people's discourse. Therefore, the interpretation of the rumor in this study is actually a kind of discourse analysis of the social interaction. Then, how do perform this analysis?
It is mainly investigated from four aspects of the people's discourse interaction of the rumor:
Firstly, no subject no discourse. It must be studied that the subject who is speaking in rumor? Persons in the real life always exist in the different networks of discourse, thus forming a complex group of subjects. The so-called "Kind words to gentleman, wily words to evil" is a popular description of the complexity of the discourse subject. Moreover, the complexity of discourse subject implies that the subjects are never the same, but the split. This split is presented in two dimensions: internal and external dimensions. The internal dimensions include "the self-conscious" and "the other-unconscious". So we must pay our attention not only to understand the subject viewing from "I think therefore I am", but also to the impact of unconscious when subject interact with discourse. The external dimensions include "The Presence of the 'Speaker'" and "The Absent Existence of the'Other'". Generally, the former express their intention by the latter, the latter strengthen their discourse power by the former. In addition, as the persons in the society, the subject of discourse is hardly influenced by the social network when they interact with each other.
Secondly, discourse interaction must have focus. In a rumor, people's discourse interaction is always around a person or a matter. In chapter four, focus people and focus events of rumors, which existed in the history and reality are analyzed with statistical methods. The references about history is coming from 26 history books in china and 9 history books in western, and the reference about the reality is coming from the news website of Google and Baidu(1.1-6.13/2007). And the basic conclusion of this analysis is that the focus of people and event in rumor can be divided into two categories: One is those who have a strong ability to control social resources and thus have enough discourse power. Those people are majority of the focus in rumor. Another is those who were marginized by society and thus they have no discourse power. And they are minority of the focus in rumor. The ordinary people are hardly the focus of rumor. Either those who have enough discourse power or have no discourse power, they all present themselves by negative way, which is generally passive for the former and active for the latter. Therefore, the focus people in rumor always reflect the bipolar of the social structure from the horizontal dimension and the social change in different periods from the vertical dimension. And the focus event is either a distortion of reality or a prediction of the future. In this condition, "truth" becomes a rhetorical method in rumor. Because the truthfulness is close together with discourse groups and the truth is actually what the discourse groups take as. In this condition, rumor is also as a kind of self-fulfilling means. That is to say, something which does not exist becomes a reality by rumors. Either the analysis of focus people or focus event can make us be far form the disturbance of ideology and feel the power of the real, detail and various social structures. In addition, during the analyzing the focus, we find a lot of rumor that its "shadow" can be discovered in history. This indicates that the social memory of a group is very important in rumor.
Thirdly, discourse interaction always manifests some forms. According to the standard whether it has variations in discourse, the rumor form can be divided into two types, which are variant form and non-variant form. Why there're variations and non-variant? We think that the media bias should not be underestimated. From the view of discourse, spoken media is easiest to make discourse vary, so it has variant bias. On the contrary, printing media is hardest to make the discourse vary, so it has non-variant bias. And, the effect of electronic media is between the spoken media and printing media, its bias is the average. After discussing the main cause of variation of discourse in rumor, A typical rumor case of "Chinese is murder", which spread during the largest campus shooting in American history, is analyzed with the social network analysis method. We find that the social structure behind the discourse form of rumor has the characteristics of "small-world" and "scale-free" simultaneously. And we also find there are two important "critical point". If there's no the two "critical point" in a rumor, the speed of spread and energy of rumor will be badly weakened. Moreover, we also discuss the importance of social situation in the discourse form of rumor.
Finally, discourse interaction is always initiated by some reasons. The discourse reason of rumor spreading is analyzed in chapter six. We find rumor spreading has a bidirectional discourse projection processes from the perspective of discourse: one is from the mind to the world (society); the other is from the world (society) to the mind. Why it is not unidirectional but bidirectional? Because there is an adaptation between the world (society) and the mind according to the theory of speech acts raised by Searle, the rumor is just the means for people to acquire the adaptation between the world (society) and the mind. When do people use the means of rumor? We think that there are two special conditions: "over-order" and "over-disorder". Both of them usually restrict the ability of discourse for people, and then form a strong tension between speech and action of discourse. When it reaches a critical point, such as totalitarian authority or social rebellion, serious imbalance occurred between mind and world (society), and the ability of discourse was further weakened simultaneously, people have to use rumor to acquire a balance between mind and world (society). In addition, we found that ideology is important in a lot of rumor cases, because the basic trend of ideology is to maintain social order.
引文
6 参见 夏征农,1999,《辞海》,上海:上海辞书出版社,第1158页。
7 参见 夏征农,1999,《辞海》,上海:上海辞书出版社,第2669页。
8 参见 夏征农,1999,《辞海》,上海:上海辞书出版社,第1158页。
11 引自 弗朗索瓦斯·勒莫,1999,《黑寡妇—谣言的示意及传播》,唐家龙译,北京:商务印书馆,第175页。
12 参见 奥尔波特,2003,《谣言心理学》,刘水平等译,辽宁教育出版社,第114页。
13 参见阿·霍列夫,图哈切夫斯基元帅案件,载:陈启能等编著,《苏联大清洗内幕》,中国新世纪读书网。
37 引自 宋濂,《张府君新墓碣铭》,载《宋文宪公全集》卷10。
51 引自PING Z,2006,《探索中世纪最离奇的谣言——尼古拉遗嘱》,北京:中国和平出版社,第199-208页。
52 引自《南方周末》1005期,2003-05-15。
58 引自 孔飞力,1999,《叫魂——1768年中国妖术大恐慌》,上海:三联书店,第300-301页。
67 参见 高毅,1991,《法兰西风格:大革命的政治文化》,杭州:浙江人民出版社,第223-224页。
A.J.格雷马斯,2005,《论意义——符号学论文集(上、下册)》,冯学俊等译,天津:百花文艺出版社。
PING Z,2006,《探索中世纪最离奇的谣言——尼古拉遗嘱》,北京:中国和平出版社。
R·L·罗斯诺、G·A·费恩,1990,《流言》,唐晖等译,北京:国际文化出版公司。
艾尔·巴比,2005,《社会研究方法(第10版)》,邱泽奇译,北京:华夏出版社。
安德鲁·斯特拉森、帕梅拉·斯图瓦德,2005,《人类学的四个讲座:谣言、想像、身体、历史》,梁永佳等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
奥尔波特,2003,《谣言心理学》,刘水平等译,沈阳:辽宁教育出版社。
巴赫金,1998,《巴赫金集》,张杰编选,上海:上海远东出版社。
彼得·温奇,2004,《社会科学的观念及其与哲学的关系》,张庆雄等译,上海:上海人民出版社。
卜长莉,2005,《社会资本与社会和谐》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
布尔迪厄,2005,《言语意味着什么——语言交换的经济》,褚思真等译,北京:商务印书馆。
查尔斯·霍顿·库利,1989,《人类本性与社会秩序》,包凡一等译,北京:华夏出版社。
陈焕新,1990,《城震谣言》,北京:地震出版社。
陈力丹,1999,《舆论学——舆论导向研究》,北京:中国广播电视出版社。
陈新汉,1997,《社会评价论——社会群体为主体的评价活动思考》,上海:上海社会科学院出版社。
陈新汉,2004,《民众评价论》,上海:上海人民出版社。
陈雪屏,1939,《谣言的心理》,长沙:艺文丛书编辑部。
道格拉斯·C·诺斯,1994,《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,上海:三联书店。
笛卡尔,1986,《第一哲学沉思集》,庞景仁译,北京:商务印书馆。
笛卡尔,2000,《谈谈方法》,王太庆译,北京:商务印书馆。
杜文澜,1984,《古谣谚》,北京:中华书局 1984年版。
恩格斯,1972,《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》,载:《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷,北京:人民出版社。
弗朗索瓦斯·勒莫,1999,《黑寡妇—谣言的示意及传播》,唐家龙译,北京:商务印书馆。
福柯,2001,《词与物》,莫伟民译,上海:三联书店。
高毅,1991,《法兰西风格:大革命的政治文化》,杭州:浙江人民出版社。
哈贝马斯,2001,《后形而上学思想》,南京:译林出版社。
哈罗德·英尼斯,2003,《传播的偏向》,何道宽译,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
哈耶克,1997,《自由秩序原理》(上、下),邓正来译,北京:三联书店。
哈耶克,2000,《法律、立法与自由》(第一卷),邓正来译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社。
哈耶克,2000,《经济、科学与政治——哈耶克思想精粹》,冯克利译,南京:江苏人民出版社。
汉森,1988,《发现的模式》,北京:中国国际广播出版社。
汉斯-约阿希姆·诺伊鲍尔,2004,《谣言女神》,顾牧译,北京:中信出版社。
胡春阳,2007,《话语分析:传播研究的新路径》,上海:上海人民出版社。
黄作,2005,《不思之说——拉康主体理论研究》,北京:人民出版社。
霍布斯,1996,《利维坦》,黎思复等译,商务印书馆。
加芬克尔,2002,《常人方法学研究》,北京:华夏出版社。
江万秀等,1991,《谣言透视》,北京:群众出版社。
卡普费雷,1991,《谣言》,郊若麟等译,上海:上海人民出版社。
康德,1990,《历史理性批判文集》,北京:商务印书馆。
科斯等,1994,《财产权利与制度变迁——产权学派与新制度学派译文集》,上海:三联书店。
克利福德·格尔兹,1999,《文化的解释》,韩莉译,南京:译林出版社。
孔飞力,1999,《叫魂——1768年中国妖术大恐慌》,上海:三联书店。
拉波夫(William Labov),1979,《在社会环境中研究语言》,载《语言学译从·第一辑》,北京:中国社会科学出版社。
勒庞,2004,《乌合之众:大众心理研究》,冯克利译,北京:中央编译出版社。
李悦娥,2002,《话语分析》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
利奥塔,1997,《后现代状态—关于知识的报告》,北京:三联书店。
刘建明,1990,《当代舆论学》,西安:陕西人民教育出版社。
刘军,2004,《社会网络分析导论》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
栾保群,2006,《历史上的谣与谶》,北京:中国档案出版社。
罗家德,2005,《社会网分析讲义》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
马歇尔·麦克卢汉,2000,《理解媒介——论人的延伸》,何道宽译,北京:商务印书馆。
马元龙,2006,《雅克·拉康——语言维度中的精神分析》,北京:东方出版社。
米德,1992,《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海:上海译文出版社。
莫里斯·哈布瓦赫,2002,《论集体记忆》,毕然、郭金华译,上海:上海人民出版社。
诺曼·费尔克拉夫,2003,《话语与社会变迁》,殷晓蓉译,北京:华夏出版社。
帕森斯,2003,《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,南京:译林出版社。
裴特生,1958,《十九世纪欧洲语言学史》,北京:科学出版社。
皮亚杰,1991,《发生认识论原理》,北京:商务印书馆。
乔纳森·波特,玛格丽特·韦斯雷尔,2006,《话语和社会心理学——超越态度和行为》,肖文明等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
乔纳森·特纳,2001,《社会学理论的结构》,邱泽奇等译,北京:华夏出版社。
荣格,1997,《荣格文集》,冯川等译,北京:改革出版社。
萨特,1987,《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,上海:三联书店。
塞尔,2006,《心灵、语言和社会》,李步楼译,上海:上海译文出版社。
沈家本,《历代刑法考》,邓经元、骈宇骞点校,北京:中华书局 1985年版。
苏萍,2001,《谣言与近代教案》,上海:上海远东出版社。
索绪尔,1980,《普通语言学教程》。北京:商务印书馆。
涂纪亮,1989,《分析哲学》,上海:上海人民出版社。
王明伦选编,1984,“湖南合省公檄”,载《反洋教书文揭帖选》,济南:齐鲁书社。
维特根斯坦,1985,《逻辑哲学论》,北京:商务印书馆。
维特根斯坦,2000,《哲学研究》,北京:商务印书馆。
夏明钊,1999,《谣言这东西》,深圳:海天出版社。
谢·卡拉—穆尔扎,2004,《论意识操纵》,徐昌翰等译,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
徐锦江,2004,《流言导读》,上海:上海文化出版社。
徐向红,1991,《现代舆论学》,中国国际广播出版社。
阎耀军,2005,《现代实证性社会预警》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
杨念群,2006,《再造“病人”:中西医冲突下的空间政治(1823-1985)》,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦,1998,《现代世界体系》,吕丹译,北京:高等教育出版社。
俞吾金,1993,《意识形态论》,上海:上海人民出版社。
袁方,1997,《社会研究方法教程》,北京:北京大学出版社。
约翰·华生,1998,《行为主义心理学》,李维译,杭州:浙江教育出版社。
约翰斯·科特,2007,《社会网络分析法》,重庆:重庆大学出版社。
约书亚·梅罗维茨,2002,《消失的地域:电子媒介对社会行为的影响》,肖志军译,北京:清华大学出版社。
张文宏,2006,《中国城市的阶层结构与社会网络》,上海:上海人民出版社。
郑瑞城,1990,《组织传播》,台湾:三民书局。
朱光潜,1996,“我们对于一棵古松的三种态度”,《谈美》,合肥:安徽教育出版社。
朱庆芳,1992,《社会指标的应用》,北京:中国统计出版社。
B·巴茨柯,1986,“国王罗伯斯庇尔或如何结束恐怖统治”,(法国)争鸣,第39期。
蔡骐,2003,“‘非典'流言的传播学透视”,《当代传播》,第5期。
长平,2007,“别拿谣言剥夺言论自由”,《南方都市报》,2007.7.28
陈高华,2000,“元代的巫觋与巫术”,《浙江社会科学》,第2期。
陈隽,2003,“社会恐慌时期流言的传播与控制—SARS时期社会流言肆虐引发的思考”,《福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,第4期。
陈新汉,1996,“社会谣言的社会评价论思考”,《求索》第2期。
陈忠华等,2002,《批评性话语分析述评》,《外语学刊》,第1期。
程粉艳,2002,“流言传播的社会机理—非常态传播的个案研究”,《当代传播》,第5期。
杜骏飞,2003,“流言的流变:SARS舆情的传播学分析”,《南京大学学报(哲学人文社科版)》,第5期。
符文忠,2003,“流言的特点及相关应急反应机制的建立”,《经济与社会发展》,第8期。
胡守为,2004,“‘举谣言'与东汉吏政”,《中山大学学报(社科版)》,第6期。
胡正强,2004,“鲁迅论谣言及其传播”,《新闻界》,第6期。
黄岭峻,2005,“谣言与革命——关于1911年武昌起义的政治传播学分析”,《华中师范大学学报(人文社科版)》,第6期。
黄珍德,2004,“论清末新政时期的谣言”,《华南师范大学学报(社科版)》,第1期。
李刚,2001,“中情局如何分化中国”,《环球》,第9期。
李国武,2005,“谣言实现的社会机制及对信息的治理”,《社会》,第4期。
李猛,1997,“常人方法学四十年(1954-1994)”,《国外社会学》,第2期。
李庆华等,2005,“P2P网络中基于谣言传播机制的资源搜索算法”,《计算机应用》,第11期。
李若健,2005,“社会变迁的折射:20世纪50年代的“毛人水怪”谣言初探”,《社会学研究》,第5期。
刘海龙,2003,“从广州肺炎事件看流言的传播与控制”,《国际新闻界》,第2期。
吕宗力,2003,“汉代的流言与讹言”,《历史研究》,第2期。
马龙闪,1999,“试析苏联30年代的‘大清洗'运动”,《东欧中亚研究》,第3期。
邵建,2005,“近代上海反教谣言的消解”,《社会科学》,第10期。
沈远新,2000,“政治谣言:界定、生存机制及其控制”,《探索》,第1期。
孙立平,2007,“如何界定谣言的边界?”《经济观察网》,2007.8.21
孙荣胜等,2004,“一种自适应的基于流言机制的AODV路由算法”,《计算机工程与应用》,第24期。
陶然,“一份流传甚广的‘周恩来遗言'”,《文史博览》,第5期。
薇,1994,“谣言与历史”,《华夏文化》,第Z1期(5、6期合刊)。
吴玉祥,1999,“地震谣言平息后的思考”,《国际地震动态》,第12期。
熊永新,2002,“公共安全危机中谣言传播现象透析”,《新闻界》,第6期。
徐赳赳,1990,“话语分析—一门新的交又学科”,《国外语言学》,第2期。
徐赳赳,1995,“话语分析二十年”,《外语教学与研究》,第1期。
杨懋源等,2001,“近年来我国地震谣言的起因及对策”,《国际地震动态》,第1期。
张传新,2003,“非典流言流传的根源与启示”,《山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,第6期。
张冠文,2004,“腐败流言的传播规律探析”,《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,第4期。
张轩豪等,2001,“网路诽谤类型之初探——从网路谣言谈起”,(台湾)《传播与管理研究》第1期。
周辉,2005,“流言传播的小世界网络特性研究”,《武汉科技学院学报》,第1期。
周晓虹,2003,“播传的畸变——对SARS传言的一种社会心理学分析”,《社会学研究》,第3期。
朱启臻等,2003,“SARS事件中的流言与控制”,《中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,第2期。
朱永生,2003,“话语分析五十年:回顾与展望”,《外国语》,第3期。
孔子,《尚书》
司马迁,《史记》
班固,《汉书》
范晔,《后汉书》
陈寿,《三国志》
房玄龄等,《晋书》
沈约,《宋书》
萧子显,《南齐书》
姚思廉,《梁书》
姚思廉,《陈书》
魏收,《魏书》
李百药,《北齐书》
令狐德棻等,《周书》
魏征等,《隋书》
李延寿,《南史》
李延寿,《北史》
刘昫,《旧唐书》
欧阳修等,《新唐书》
薛居正等,《旧五代史》
欧阳修等,《新五代史》
脱脱等,《宋史》
脱脱等,《辽史》
脱脱等,《金史》
宋濂等,《元史》
张廷玉等,《明史》
赵尔巽等,《清史稿》
荷马,《荷马史诗》
希罗多德,《历史》
修昔底德,《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》
阿庇安,《罗马史》
塔西佗,《编年史》
祁伯尔,《历史的轨迹——二千年教会史》
吉本,《罗马帝国衰亡史》
马基雅维里,《佛罗伦萨史》
伏尔泰,《路易十四时代》
陈万怀,2004,《当代社会流言的传播与控制》,上海大学。
范盱阳,2001,《对1870年天津教案中谣言的审视》,北京大学。
黄静,2003,《谣言与政坛风潮——梁士诒内阁倒台事件研究》,复旦大学。
金屏,2005,《谣言:概念反思及其对现代社会的启示》,吉林大学。
李丹,2005,《“SARS”危机中的谣言与恐慌》,四川大学。
欧颖峰,2006,《危机事态中流言传播与控制》,湖南师范大学。
潘相国,2002,《网络谣言与新闻真实》,华中师范大学。
王憬晶,2004,《探析网络时代的谣言传播》,辽宁大学。
吴毓淳,2002(民国九十一年),《谁在八卦?一个社会网络的分析》,(台湾)国立政治大学。
徐雁,1998,《论中国近代流言变革中的激进主义-以五四白话文运动和大众运动为例》,华中师范大学。
岳书亮,2004,《社会谣言的评价论研究》,上海大学。
蔡静,2006,《流言:阴影中的社会传播》,复旦大学。
吕翔,2004,《福柯与批判问题》,复旦大学。
邵成刚,2003,《胆小的传谣人传播谣言的Potts模型》,华中科技大学。
吴猛,2003,《福柯话语理论探要》,复旦大学。
Atkinson,J.M.,&Heritage,J.C.(Eds.).1984.Sturctures of Social action,Cambridge University Press.
Austin,J.1961,How To Do Things With Words.London:Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin,M.,1986,Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bartlett,F.1932,Remembering.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bauer.R A.,1966,Social Indicators.Cambridge,Ma:MIT Press.
Bourdieu P.,1998,Practical Reason.Cambridge:Polity Press.
Bronner,Stephen Eric,2003,A rumor about the Jews:anti-Semitism.Conspiracy and the Protocols of Zion Oxford;New York:Oxford University Press.
Brown,G.&:Yule,G,1983,Discourse Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brunvand J.-H.,1983,The Vanishing Hitch-hiker.London,Picador Books.
Burt,Ronald S.,1992,Structural holes:the Social Structure of Competition.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University press.
Caputo,Philip.1977,A rumor of war,New York:Holt,Rinehart and Winston.
Cohen,P.S.,1968,Modern Social Theory,London,Heinemann
David Crowley & David Mitchell,1994,Communication Theory Today.Cambridge:Polity Press
E.Goffman,1961,Encounters:Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
Firth,J.R.,1957,Papers in linguistics,1934-1951.London:Oxford University Press.
Foucault,M.,1972,The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language,translated by A. M.Sheridan Smith,New York:Pantheon books.
Foucault,M.,1987,Death and the Labyrinth.The World of Raymond Roussel,Eng.trans.C.Ruas,Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press.
Freud,1959,Collected Papers,Vol.Ⅳ.New York:Basic Books Inc.Publishers.
Gary Alan Fine,Vronique Campion-Vincent,Chip Heath,2005,Rumor mills:the social impact of rumor and legend,New Brunswick,N.J.:Aldine Transaction.
Giddens,Anthony,1993,New Rules of Sociological Method:A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies.Cambridge:Polity Press;
Gumperz,J.J.& Levinson,S.C.,1991,Rethinking linguistic relativity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.,1994,An Introduction to Functional Grammar.London:Edward Arnold.
Hans-Joachim Neubauer,1999,the Rumour:A Cultural History.Translated by Christian Braun,London:FREE ASSOCIATION BOOKS.
Harold Garfinkel,1967,Studies in Ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Hassan,Ihab Habib,1995,Rumors of change.Tuscaloosa,Ala.:University of Alabama Press.
Hymes,D.(Ed).1964,Language in culture and society.New York:Harper&Row.
James Paul Gee,2000,An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method.北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Kapferer,Jean-Noel.1990,Rumors:uses,interpretations,and images.New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.
Knopf,Terry Ann.1975,Rumors,race,and riots.New Brunswick,N.J.:Transaction Books.
Laplanche,J.&Pontalis,JB,1973,The Language of Psychoanalysis,trans.D.Nicholson-Smith,London:Hogarth.
Macdonell,D.1986,Theories of Discourse:an introduction.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Matthiessen,C.&J.A.Bateman.1991,Text Generation and Systemic-Functional Linguistics:Experience from English and Japanese.London:Pinter.
Morin E.,1969,La Rumeur d'Orleans.Paris,Editions du Seuil.
Patricia A.Tumer,1993,I heard it through the grapevine:rumor in African-American culture.University of California Press.
Paul J.Thibaut,1991,Social Semiotics as Praxis:Text,Social Meaning Making,and Nabokov's Ada.Minneapolis Oxford:University of Minnesota Press.
Randall Collins,2004,Interaction Ritual Chains.Princeton University Press.
Raymond Geuss,1981,The Idea of a Critical Theory,Habermas and the Frankfurt School.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur,P,1976,Interpretation theory:Discourse and the surplus of meaning.Fort Worth:Texas University Press.
Robert K.Merton.1968,Social Theory and Social Structure.New York:The Free Press.
Rouquette(M.L.),1975,Les Rumeurs.Paris,PUF.
Shibutani.T.1966,Improvised news:A Sociological Study of rumor.Indianapolis:Bobbs- Merrill.
Terry Eagleton,1991,Ideology:an introduction.London;New York:Verso.
van Dijk,T.A.1985.Handbook of Discourse Analysis.New York:Academic Press.
Vico,Giambattista,1968,The New Science of Giambattista Vico.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,vol.2.
Widdowson,H.G,1979,Explorations in applied linguistics.Oxford:OUP Goffman,E,1981,Forms of talk,Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
A-L Barabasi,Albert R.,"Emergence of scaling in random networks",Science,1999,286:509-512.
Albert R,Jeong H,A-L.Barabasi.,"Diameter of the World Wide Web",Nature,1999,401:130-131.
BACK(K.),FESTINGER(L.),HYMOVlTCH(B.),KELLEY(H.),SCHACHTER(S.),THIBAUT(J.),1950,"The methodology of studying rumor transmission",Human Relations,n°4.
Buckner.H.T,1965,"A theory of rumor transmission",Public opinion quarterly(29),n1.
Bysow,L.A,1928."Geruchte" in kolner vierteljahreshefte fur Soziologie,7.
Caplow T.,1947,"Rumors in War",Social Forces,25.
Coleman A.,1979,"Alligators-in-the-Sewers:a Journalistic Origin",Journal of American Folklore,92.
D.H.Zanette,2002,"Dynamics of rumor propagation on small-world networks",Phys.Rev.E,65.
D.J.Watts,S.H.Strogatz,1998,"Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks",Nature,Vol.393.
Davern,Micheal,1997,"Networks and Economic Sociology:A Proposed Research Agenda for a More Complete Social Science".American Journal of Sociology,56.
Dodd(S.C.),1952,"Testing message diffusion from person to person",Public opinion quarterly,t.16.
Fine G.,1979,"Cokelore and Coke law:Urban Belief Tales and the Problem of Multiple Origins",Journal of American Folklore,92.
Granovetter,Mark S.,1985,"Economic Action and Social Structure:the Problem of Embededness",American Journal of Sociology 91(3).
Halliday, M.A.K., 1983, "Systemic Background", In W.S. Greaves& J.D. Benson (eds.), Systemic Perspectives in Discourse, London: Edward Arnold.
Harris, Z. "Discourse analysis", Language, 1952, (28): 1-30.
Harvey Sacks, 1963, "Sociological Description", Berkeley Journal of Sociology (8).
Higham (T.M), 1951,'The experimental study of the transmission of rumour", British Journal of Psychology, n°42.
Jung C.G, 1917, "A Contribution to the psychology of rumor", in C. Jung(Ed) , Collected Papers on analytical Psychology (PP166-199). New York: Moffit Yard.
Knapp R., 1944, "A Psychology of Rumor", Public Opinion Quarterly, 8(1).
Labov W., 1982. "Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative", In D.Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.219-247).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Liu Zhongzhu, Luo Jun, Shao Chenggang, 2001, "Potts model for exaggeration of a simple rumor transmitted by recreant rumor mongers", Phys.Rev.E, 64.
Malinowski, B., 1923,'The problem of meaning in primitive languages." In Supplement 1 to C.K. Ogden & I. A. Richards, the Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
Mann.W, 1984, Discourse structures for Text Generation. Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-84-127: University of Southern California.
Mitchell. T.F, 1957, "The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: a situational statement", Herperis, 1957(44).
Nkpa, N.K.U, 1975, "Rumor mongering in wartime", Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 27-35.
Oppenheim, Rosa.1911, "Zur psychologie der Geriichts" in Zeitschrift fur angewandte psychologie und psychologische Sammelforschung (Instituts der Gesellschaft fur experimentelle Psychologie), edited by William Stern and Otto Lipmann, 5:344-355.
S. Milgram, 1967, "The small world problem", Psychology Today, Vol. 2.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. &Jefferson.G, 1998, "A Simplistic for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation", In Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, ed. A. Kasper, 193-242. Routledege.
Schachter (S.), Burdick (H.), 1955,"A field experiment on rumor transmission and distortion", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, n°3.
Schachter(S.), Burdick(H.),1955,"A field experiment on rumor transmission and distorsion", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,n°3.
SCHALL (H.M.), LEVY (B.), TRESSELT (M.E.), 1950, "A sociometric approach to rumor", Journal of Social Psychology, vol, 31.
Stern, William. 1902, "Zur psychologie der Aussage. Experimentelle Untersuchungen uber
Erinnerungstreue",in Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft,22:315.
Thompson.H.S,1980."Stress and salience in English",Palo Alto Research Centre:Xerox.
Van Dijk,T.A.,1997,"Discourse as interaction in Society",In van Dijk(ed.) Discourse as Social Action,London:Sage Publications.
Denny,Melany Patrice,2005,An analog study of the impact of rule accuracy on rumor in organizational settings,University of Nevada,Reno.
Ewing,Tabetha Leigh,2005,Rumor and foreign politics in Louis XV's Paris during the War of Austrian Succession(France),Princeton University.
Lee,Jin-hee.,2004,Instability of empire:Earthquake,rumor,and the massacre of Koreans in the Japanese empire.University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
7 参见 夏征农,1999,《辞海》,上海:上海辞书出版社,第2669页。
8 参见 夏征农,1999,《辞海》,上海:上海辞书出版社,第1158页。
11 引自 弗朗索瓦斯·勒莫,1999,《黑寡妇—谣言的示意及传播》,唐家龙译,北京:商务印书馆,第175页。
12 参见 奥尔波特,2003,《谣言心理学》,刘水平等译,辽宁教育出版社,第114页。
13 参见阿·霍列夫,图哈切夫斯基元帅案件,载:陈启能等编著,《苏联大清洗内幕》,中国新世纪读书网。
37 引自 宋濂,《张府君新墓碣铭》,载《宋文宪公全集》卷10。
51 引自PING Z,2006,《探索中世纪最离奇的谣言——尼古拉遗嘱》,北京:中国和平出版社,第199-208页。
52 引自《南方周末》1005期,2003-05-15。
58 引自 孔飞力,1999,《叫魂——1768年中国妖术大恐慌》,上海:三联书店,第300-301页。
67 参见 高毅,1991,《法兰西风格:大革命的政治文化》,杭州:浙江人民出版社,第223-224页。
A.J.格雷马斯,2005,《论意义——符号学论文集(上、下册)》,冯学俊等译,天津:百花文艺出版社。
PING Z,2006,《探索中世纪最离奇的谣言——尼古拉遗嘱》,北京:中国和平出版社。
R·L·罗斯诺、G·A·费恩,1990,《流言》,唐晖等译,北京:国际文化出版公司。
艾尔·巴比,2005,《社会研究方法(第10版)》,邱泽奇译,北京:华夏出版社。
安德鲁·斯特拉森、帕梅拉·斯图瓦德,2005,《人类学的四个讲座:谣言、想像、身体、历史》,梁永佳等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
奥尔波特,2003,《谣言心理学》,刘水平等译,沈阳:辽宁教育出版社。
巴赫金,1998,《巴赫金集》,张杰编选,上海:上海远东出版社。
彼得·温奇,2004,《社会科学的观念及其与哲学的关系》,张庆雄等译,上海:上海人民出版社。
卜长莉,2005,《社会资本与社会和谐》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
布尔迪厄,2005,《言语意味着什么——语言交换的经济》,褚思真等译,北京:商务印书馆。
查尔斯·霍顿·库利,1989,《人类本性与社会秩序》,包凡一等译,北京:华夏出版社。
陈焕新,1990,《城震谣言》,北京:地震出版社。
陈力丹,1999,《舆论学——舆论导向研究》,北京:中国广播电视出版社。
陈新汉,1997,《社会评价论——社会群体为主体的评价活动思考》,上海:上海社会科学院出版社。
陈新汉,2004,《民众评价论》,上海:上海人民出版社。
陈雪屏,1939,《谣言的心理》,长沙:艺文丛书编辑部。
道格拉斯·C·诺斯,1994,《制度、制度变迁与经济绩效》,上海:三联书店。
笛卡尔,1986,《第一哲学沉思集》,庞景仁译,北京:商务印书馆。
笛卡尔,2000,《谈谈方法》,王太庆译,北京:商务印书馆。
杜文澜,1984,《古谣谚》,北京:中华书局 1984年版。
恩格斯,1972,《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》,载:《马克思恩格斯选集》第4卷,北京:人民出版社。
弗朗索瓦斯·勒莫,1999,《黑寡妇—谣言的示意及传播》,唐家龙译,北京:商务印书馆。
福柯,2001,《词与物》,莫伟民译,上海:三联书店。
高毅,1991,《法兰西风格:大革命的政治文化》,杭州:浙江人民出版社。
哈贝马斯,2001,《后形而上学思想》,南京:译林出版社。
哈罗德·英尼斯,2003,《传播的偏向》,何道宽译,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
哈耶克,1997,《自由秩序原理》(上、下),邓正来译,北京:三联书店。
哈耶克,2000,《法律、立法与自由》(第一卷),邓正来译,北京:中国大百科全书出版社。
哈耶克,2000,《经济、科学与政治——哈耶克思想精粹》,冯克利译,南京:江苏人民出版社。
汉森,1988,《发现的模式》,北京:中国国际广播出版社。
汉斯-约阿希姆·诺伊鲍尔,2004,《谣言女神》,顾牧译,北京:中信出版社。
胡春阳,2007,《话语分析:传播研究的新路径》,上海:上海人民出版社。
黄作,2005,《不思之说——拉康主体理论研究》,北京:人民出版社。
霍布斯,1996,《利维坦》,黎思复等译,商务印书馆。
加芬克尔,2002,《常人方法学研究》,北京:华夏出版社。
江万秀等,1991,《谣言透视》,北京:群众出版社。
卡普费雷,1991,《谣言》,郊若麟等译,上海:上海人民出版社。
康德,1990,《历史理性批判文集》,北京:商务印书馆。
科斯等,1994,《财产权利与制度变迁——产权学派与新制度学派译文集》,上海:三联书店。
克利福德·格尔兹,1999,《文化的解释》,韩莉译,南京:译林出版社。
孔飞力,1999,《叫魂——1768年中国妖术大恐慌》,上海:三联书店。
拉波夫(William Labov),1979,《在社会环境中研究语言》,载《语言学译从·第一辑》,北京:中国社会科学出版社。
勒庞,2004,《乌合之众:大众心理研究》,冯克利译,北京:中央编译出版社。
李悦娥,2002,《话语分析》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
利奥塔,1997,《后现代状态—关于知识的报告》,北京:三联书店。
刘建明,1990,《当代舆论学》,西安:陕西人民教育出版社。
刘军,2004,《社会网络分析导论》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
栾保群,2006,《历史上的谣与谶》,北京:中国档案出版社。
罗家德,2005,《社会网分析讲义》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
马歇尔·麦克卢汉,2000,《理解媒介——论人的延伸》,何道宽译,北京:商务印书馆。
马元龙,2006,《雅克·拉康——语言维度中的精神分析》,北京:东方出版社。
米德,1992,《心灵、自我与社会》,赵月瑟译,上海:上海译文出版社。
莫里斯·哈布瓦赫,2002,《论集体记忆》,毕然、郭金华译,上海:上海人民出版社。
诺曼·费尔克拉夫,2003,《话语与社会变迁》,殷晓蓉译,北京:华夏出版社。
帕森斯,2003,《社会行动的结构》,张明德等译,南京:译林出版社。
裴特生,1958,《十九世纪欧洲语言学史》,北京:科学出版社。
皮亚杰,1991,《发生认识论原理》,北京:商务印书馆。
乔纳森·波特,玛格丽特·韦斯雷尔,2006,《话语和社会心理学——超越态度和行为》,肖文明等译,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
乔纳森·特纳,2001,《社会学理论的结构》,邱泽奇等译,北京:华夏出版社。
荣格,1997,《荣格文集》,冯川等译,北京:改革出版社。
萨特,1987,《存在与虚无》,陈宣良等译,上海:三联书店。
塞尔,2006,《心灵、语言和社会》,李步楼译,上海:上海译文出版社。
沈家本,《历代刑法考》,邓经元、骈宇骞点校,北京:中华书局 1985年版。
苏萍,2001,《谣言与近代教案》,上海:上海远东出版社。
索绪尔,1980,《普通语言学教程》。北京:商务印书馆。
涂纪亮,1989,《分析哲学》,上海:上海人民出版社。
王明伦选编,1984,“湖南合省公檄”,载《反洋教书文揭帖选》,济南:齐鲁书社。
维特根斯坦,1985,《逻辑哲学论》,北京:商务印书馆。
维特根斯坦,2000,《哲学研究》,北京:商务印书馆。
夏明钊,1999,《谣言这东西》,深圳:海天出版社。
谢·卡拉—穆尔扎,2004,《论意识操纵》,徐昌翰等译,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
徐锦江,2004,《流言导读》,上海:上海文化出版社。
徐向红,1991,《现代舆论学》,中国国际广播出版社。
阎耀军,2005,《现代实证性社会预警》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
杨念群,2006,《再造“病人”:中西医冲突下的空间政治(1823-1985)》,北京:中国人民大学出版社。
伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦,1998,《现代世界体系》,吕丹译,北京:高等教育出版社。
俞吾金,1993,《意识形态论》,上海:上海人民出版社。
袁方,1997,《社会研究方法教程》,北京:北京大学出版社。
约翰·华生,1998,《行为主义心理学》,李维译,杭州:浙江教育出版社。
约翰斯·科特,2007,《社会网络分析法》,重庆:重庆大学出版社。
约书亚·梅罗维茨,2002,《消失的地域:电子媒介对社会行为的影响》,肖志军译,北京:清华大学出版社。
张文宏,2006,《中国城市的阶层结构与社会网络》,上海:上海人民出版社。
郑瑞城,1990,《组织传播》,台湾:三民书局。
朱光潜,1996,“我们对于一棵古松的三种态度”,《谈美》,合肥:安徽教育出版社。
朱庆芳,1992,《社会指标的应用》,北京:中国统计出版社。
B·巴茨柯,1986,“国王罗伯斯庇尔或如何结束恐怖统治”,(法国)争鸣,第39期。
蔡骐,2003,“‘非典'流言的传播学透视”,《当代传播》,第5期。
长平,2007,“别拿谣言剥夺言论自由”,《南方都市报》,2007.7.28
陈高华,2000,“元代的巫觋与巫术”,《浙江社会科学》,第2期。
陈隽,2003,“社会恐慌时期流言的传播与控制—SARS时期社会流言肆虐引发的思考”,《福州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,第4期。
陈新汉,1996,“社会谣言的社会评价论思考”,《求索》第2期。
陈忠华等,2002,《批评性话语分析述评》,《外语学刊》,第1期。
程粉艳,2002,“流言传播的社会机理—非常态传播的个案研究”,《当代传播》,第5期。
杜骏飞,2003,“流言的流变:SARS舆情的传播学分析”,《南京大学学报(哲学人文社科版)》,第5期。
符文忠,2003,“流言的特点及相关应急反应机制的建立”,《经济与社会发展》,第8期。
胡守为,2004,“‘举谣言'与东汉吏政”,《中山大学学报(社科版)》,第6期。
胡正强,2004,“鲁迅论谣言及其传播”,《新闻界》,第6期。
黄岭峻,2005,“谣言与革命——关于1911年武昌起义的政治传播学分析”,《华中师范大学学报(人文社科版)》,第6期。
黄珍德,2004,“论清末新政时期的谣言”,《华南师范大学学报(社科版)》,第1期。
李刚,2001,“中情局如何分化中国”,《环球》,第9期。
李国武,2005,“谣言实现的社会机制及对信息的治理”,《社会》,第4期。
李猛,1997,“常人方法学四十年(1954-1994)”,《国外社会学》,第2期。
李庆华等,2005,“P2P网络中基于谣言传播机制的资源搜索算法”,《计算机应用》,第11期。
李若健,2005,“社会变迁的折射:20世纪50年代的“毛人水怪”谣言初探”,《社会学研究》,第5期。
刘海龙,2003,“从广州肺炎事件看流言的传播与控制”,《国际新闻界》,第2期。
吕宗力,2003,“汉代的流言与讹言”,《历史研究》,第2期。
马龙闪,1999,“试析苏联30年代的‘大清洗'运动”,《东欧中亚研究》,第3期。
邵建,2005,“近代上海反教谣言的消解”,《社会科学》,第10期。
沈远新,2000,“政治谣言:界定、生存机制及其控制”,《探索》,第1期。
孙立平,2007,“如何界定谣言的边界?”《经济观察网》,2007.8.21
孙荣胜等,2004,“一种自适应的基于流言机制的AODV路由算法”,《计算机工程与应用》,第24期。
陶然,“一份流传甚广的‘周恩来遗言'”,《文史博览》,第5期。
薇,1994,“谣言与历史”,《华夏文化》,第Z1期(5、6期合刊)。
吴玉祥,1999,“地震谣言平息后的思考”,《国际地震动态》,第12期。
熊永新,2002,“公共安全危机中谣言传播现象透析”,《新闻界》,第6期。
徐赳赳,1990,“话语分析—一门新的交又学科”,《国外语言学》,第2期。
徐赳赳,1995,“话语分析二十年”,《外语教学与研究》,第1期。
杨懋源等,2001,“近年来我国地震谣言的起因及对策”,《国际地震动态》,第1期。
张传新,2003,“非典流言流传的根源与启示”,《山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,第6期。
张冠文,2004,“腐败流言的传播规律探析”,《武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版)》,第4期。
张轩豪等,2001,“网路诽谤类型之初探——从网路谣言谈起”,(台湾)《传播与管理研究》第1期。
周辉,2005,“流言传播的小世界网络特性研究”,《武汉科技学院学报》,第1期。
周晓虹,2003,“播传的畸变——对SARS传言的一种社会心理学分析”,《社会学研究》,第3期。
朱启臻等,2003,“SARS事件中的流言与控制”,《中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)》,第2期。
朱永生,2003,“话语分析五十年:回顾与展望”,《外国语》,第3期。
孔子,《尚书》
司马迁,《史记》
班固,《汉书》
范晔,《后汉书》
陈寿,《三国志》
房玄龄等,《晋书》
沈约,《宋书》
萧子显,《南齐书》
姚思廉,《梁书》
姚思廉,《陈书》
魏收,《魏书》
李百药,《北齐书》
令狐德棻等,《周书》
魏征等,《隋书》
李延寿,《南史》
李延寿,《北史》
刘昫,《旧唐书》
欧阳修等,《新唐书》
薛居正等,《旧五代史》
欧阳修等,《新五代史》
脱脱等,《宋史》
脱脱等,《辽史》
脱脱等,《金史》
宋濂等,《元史》
张廷玉等,《明史》
赵尔巽等,《清史稿》
荷马,《荷马史诗》
希罗多德,《历史》
修昔底德,《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》
阿庇安,《罗马史》
塔西佗,《编年史》
祁伯尔,《历史的轨迹——二千年教会史》
吉本,《罗马帝国衰亡史》
马基雅维里,《佛罗伦萨史》
伏尔泰,《路易十四时代》
陈万怀,2004,《当代社会流言的传播与控制》,上海大学。
范盱阳,2001,《对1870年天津教案中谣言的审视》,北京大学。
黄静,2003,《谣言与政坛风潮——梁士诒内阁倒台事件研究》,复旦大学。
金屏,2005,《谣言:概念反思及其对现代社会的启示》,吉林大学。
李丹,2005,《“SARS”危机中的谣言与恐慌》,四川大学。
欧颖峰,2006,《危机事态中流言传播与控制》,湖南师范大学。
潘相国,2002,《网络谣言与新闻真实》,华中师范大学。
王憬晶,2004,《探析网络时代的谣言传播》,辽宁大学。
吴毓淳,2002(民国九十一年),《谁在八卦?一个社会网络的分析》,(台湾)国立政治大学。
徐雁,1998,《论中国近代流言变革中的激进主义-以五四白话文运动和大众运动为例》,华中师范大学。
岳书亮,2004,《社会谣言的评价论研究》,上海大学。
蔡静,2006,《流言:阴影中的社会传播》,复旦大学。
吕翔,2004,《福柯与批判问题》,复旦大学。
邵成刚,2003,《胆小的传谣人传播谣言的Potts模型》,华中科技大学。
吴猛,2003,《福柯话语理论探要》,复旦大学。
Atkinson,J.M.,&Heritage,J.C.(Eds.).1984.Sturctures of Social action,Cambridge University Press.
Austin,J.1961,How To Do Things With Words.London:Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin,M.,1986,Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bartlett,F.1932,Remembering.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Bauer.R A.,1966,Social Indicators.Cambridge,Ma:MIT Press.
Bourdieu P.,1998,Practical Reason.Cambridge:Polity Press.
Bronner,Stephen Eric,2003,A rumor about the Jews:anti-Semitism.Conspiracy and the Protocols of Zion Oxford;New York:Oxford University Press.
Brown,G.&:Yule,G,1983,Discourse Analysis.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brunvand J.-H.,1983,The Vanishing Hitch-hiker.London,Picador Books.
Burt,Ronald S.,1992,Structural holes:the Social Structure of Competition.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University press.
Caputo,Philip.1977,A rumor of war,New York:Holt,Rinehart and Winston.
Cohen,P.S.,1968,Modern Social Theory,London,Heinemann
David Crowley & David Mitchell,1994,Communication Theory Today.Cambridge:Polity Press
E.Goffman,1961,Encounters:Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
Firth,J.R.,1957,Papers in linguistics,1934-1951.London:Oxford University Press.
Foucault,M.,1972,The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language,translated by A. M.Sheridan Smith,New York:Pantheon books.
Foucault,M.,1987,Death and the Labyrinth.The World of Raymond Roussel,Eng.trans.C.Ruas,Berkeley & Los Angeles:University of California Press.
Freud,1959,Collected Papers,Vol.Ⅳ.New York:Basic Books Inc.Publishers.
Gary Alan Fine,Vronique Campion-Vincent,Chip Heath,2005,Rumor mills:the social impact of rumor and legend,New Brunswick,N.J.:Aldine Transaction.
Giddens,Anthony,1993,New Rules of Sociological Method:A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies.Cambridge:Polity Press;
Gumperz,J.J.& Levinson,S.C.,1991,Rethinking linguistic relativity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Halliday,M.A.K.,1994,An Introduction to Functional Grammar.London:Edward Arnold.
Hans-Joachim Neubauer,1999,the Rumour:A Cultural History.Translated by Christian Braun,London:FREE ASSOCIATION BOOKS.
Harold Garfinkel,1967,Studies in Ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Hassan,Ihab Habib,1995,Rumors of change.Tuscaloosa,Ala.:University of Alabama Press.
Hymes,D.(Ed).1964,Language in culture and society.New York:Harper&Row.
James Paul Gee,2000,An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method.北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Kapferer,Jean-Noel.1990,Rumors:uses,interpretations,and images.New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.
Knopf,Terry Ann.1975,Rumors,race,and riots.New Brunswick,N.J.:Transaction Books.
Laplanche,J.&Pontalis,JB,1973,The Language of Psychoanalysis,trans.D.Nicholson-Smith,London:Hogarth.
Macdonell,D.1986,Theories of Discourse:an introduction.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Matthiessen,C.&J.A.Bateman.1991,Text Generation and Systemic-Functional Linguistics:Experience from English and Japanese.London:Pinter.
Morin E.,1969,La Rumeur d'Orleans.Paris,Editions du Seuil.
Patricia A.Tumer,1993,I heard it through the grapevine:rumor in African-American culture.University of California Press.
Paul J.Thibaut,1991,Social Semiotics as Praxis:Text,Social Meaning Making,and Nabokov's Ada.Minneapolis Oxford:University of Minnesota Press.
Randall Collins,2004,Interaction Ritual Chains.Princeton University Press.
Raymond Geuss,1981,The Idea of a Critical Theory,Habermas and the Frankfurt School.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur,P,1976,Interpretation theory:Discourse and the surplus of meaning.Fort Worth:Texas University Press.
Robert K.Merton.1968,Social Theory and Social Structure.New York:The Free Press.
Rouquette(M.L.),1975,Les Rumeurs.Paris,PUF.
Shibutani.T.1966,Improvised news:A Sociological Study of rumor.Indianapolis:Bobbs- Merrill.
Terry Eagleton,1991,Ideology:an introduction.London;New York:Verso.
van Dijk,T.A.1985.Handbook of Discourse Analysis.New York:Academic Press.
Vico,Giambattista,1968,The New Science of Giambattista Vico.Ithaca and London:Cornell University Press,vol.2.
Widdowson,H.G,1979,Explorations in applied linguistics.Oxford:OUP Goffman,E,1981,Forms of talk,Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
A-L Barabasi,Albert R.,"Emergence of scaling in random networks",Science,1999,286:509-512.
Albert R,Jeong H,A-L.Barabasi.,"Diameter of the World Wide Web",Nature,1999,401:130-131.
BACK(K.),FESTINGER(L.),HYMOVlTCH(B.),KELLEY(H.),SCHACHTER(S.),THIBAUT(J.),1950,"The methodology of studying rumor transmission",Human Relations,n°4.
Buckner.H.T,1965,"A theory of rumor transmission",Public opinion quarterly(29),n1.
Bysow,L.A,1928."Geruchte" in kolner vierteljahreshefte fur Soziologie,7.
Caplow T.,1947,"Rumors in War",Social Forces,25.
Coleman A.,1979,"Alligators-in-the-Sewers:a Journalistic Origin",Journal of American Folklore,92.
D.H.Zanette,2002,"Dynamics of rumor propagation on small-world networks",Phys.Rev.E,65.
D.J.Watts,S.H.Strogatz,1998,"Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks",Nature,Vol.393.
Davern,Micheal,1997,"Networks and Economic Sociology:A Proposed Research Agenda for a More Complete Social Science".American Journal of Sociology,56.
Dodd(S.C.),1952,"Testing message diffusion from person to person",Public opinion quarterly,t.16.
Fine G.,1979,"Cokelore and Coke law:Urban Belief Tales and the Problem of Multiple Origins",Journal of American Folklore,92.
Granovetter,Mark S.,1985,"Economic Action and Social Structure:the Problem of Embededness",American Journal of Sociology 91(3).
Halliday, M.A.K., 1983, "Systemic Background", In W.S. Greaves& J.D. Benson (eds.), Systemic Perspectives in Discourse, London: Edward Arnold.
Harris, Z. "Discourse analysis", Language, 1952, (28): 1-30.
Harvey Sacks, 1963, "Sociological Description", Berkeley Journal of Sociology (8).
Higham (T.M), 1951,'The experimental study of the transmission of rumour", British Journal of Psychology, n°42.
Jung C.G, 1917, "A Contribution to the psychology of rumor", in C. Jung(Ed) , Collected Papers on analytical Psychology (PP166-199). New York: Moffit Yard.
Knapp R., 1944, "A Psychology of Rumor", Public Opinion Quarterly, 8(1).
Labov W., 1982. "Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative", In D.Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp.219-247).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Liu Zhongzhu, Luo Jun, Shao Chenggang, 2001, "Potts model for exaggeration of a simple rumor transmitted by recreant rumor mongers", Phys.Rev.E, 64.
Malinowski, B., 1923,'The problem of meaning in primitive languages." In Supplement 1 to C.K. Ogden & I. A. Richards, the Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
Mann.W, 1984, Discourse structures for Text Generation. Information Sciences Institute Research Report RR-84-127: University of Southern California.
Mitchell. T.F, 1957, "The language of buying and selling in Cyrenaica: a situational statement", Herperis, 1957(44).
Nkpa, N.K.U, 1975, "Rumor mongering in wartime", Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 27-35.
Oppenheim, Rosa.1911, "Zur psychologie der Geriichts" in Zeitschrift fur angewandte psychologie und psychologische Sammelforschung (Instituts der Gesellschaft fur experimentelle Psychologie), edited by William Stern and Otto Lipmann, 5:344-355.
S. Milgram, 1967, "The small world problem", Psychology Today, Vol. 2.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. &Jefferson.G, 1998, "A Simplistic for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation", In Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, ed. A. Kasper, 193-242. Routledege.
Schachter (S.), Burdick (H.), 1955,"A field experiment on rumor transmission and distortion", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, n°3.
Schachter(S.), Burdick(H.),1955,"A field experiment on rumor transmission and distorsion", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,n°3.
SCHALL (H.M.), LEVY (B.), TRESSELT (M.E.), 1950, "A sociometric approach to rumor", Journal of Social Psychology, vol, 31.
Stern, William. 1902, "Zur psychologie der Aussage. Experimentelle Untersuchungen uber
Erinnerungstreue",in Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft,22:315.
Thompson.H.S,1980."Stress and salience in English",Palo Alto Research Centre:Xerox.
Van Dijk,T.A.,1997,"Discourse as interaction in Society",In van Dijk(ed.) Discourse as Social Action,London:Sage Publications.
Denny,Melany Patrice,2005,An analog study of the impact of rule accuracy on rumor in organizational settings,University of Nevada,Reno.
Ewing,Tabetha Leigh,2005,Rumor and foreign politics in Louis XV's Paris during the War of Austrian Succession(France),Princeton University.
Lee,Jin-hee.,2004,Instability of empire:Earthquake,rumor,and the massacre of Koreans in the Japanese empire.University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.